MMORPG.com Discussion Forums

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

It seems that design philosophy for most modern MMORPG’s favors creating what amounts to a single player story RPG with co-op features, limited crafting, and some sort of open PVP zone built around PVE like objectives. As such there simply isn’t any sustained long term play appeal to the games that old school players crave in order to justify a subscription dollar. Designers seem to expect you to buy it, play it for a while, and then move to something else only to hopefully come back for the next expansion.

TESO doesn’t look any different from the other recent releases in that regard. With such a design philosophy a subscription fee amounts to little more than a money grab rather than added play value for the dollars invested. Free to play has increasingly become the last resort for the failed subscription game or a method of nickel and dime-ing you to death for little more than basic game features.

Since TESO doesn’t offer a subscription title’s expected value in content features and is an upcoming release rather than failed attempt at this point, I will only play if it is BUY TO PLAY. Otherwise, they can keep it.

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

Originally posted by Burntvet

That may be your experience, but I have found it to be the opposite: in F2P games, there is no way to get rid of the Bots, cheaters, and over-the-top D-bags, because even if a company did manage to get rid of such undesirables by way of an acct ban, they just roll 3 more and are right back. At least with a sub game / purchased client, it can slow that down a little. Some people play F2P games just to grief and ruin other people's fun, I have seen less of that in P2Ps myself.

Another good point, I agree. I will always prefer Subscription based mmorpgs.

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

I really don't care myself. If it's P2P than I won't bother with it at all. If it's B2P than I probably would pick it up. If it's F2P than I might download it if I have nothing else to play at the time.

There is more than enough games for me to try out and enjoy, so I'm not hurting for a game to play. I prefer B2P as it profits the developer directly but also should keep a bit of honesty and accountability when it comes to the cash shop.

All of my posts are either intelligent, thought provoking, funny, satirical, sarcastic or intentionally disrespectful. Take your pick.

I get banned in the forums for games I love, so lets see if I do better in the forums for games I hate.

Report this post

Because it works. If they put the right stuff on the cash shop they will have a constant flow of money and if they put interesting stuff in the CE and digital edition they will make more aswell.

A bought game always sell better, because a F2P can't sell and people don't like the fact that it's F2P, most don't want to pay a subscription, but some want an option to buy stuff to make their gameplay more fun, like a mount or cool outfit etc.

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

i hate cash shop in every possible way... Guild wars 2 started nicely.,.. but then they always nerfed all the ways to gain gold so we have to use the gem store more... everything was about the gem store at some point.... hiding well but still felt it always.... i prefer a really free model such an never ending trial of some sort... and then if you wanna really participate to the game you should pay the sub.. but not such as AoC that you couldnt go to certain places... i think i liked theDDO most..but still...i believe that the best way to get the best game..is with sub. company try more so ppl want to play even with sub... rather than the company trick people so they have to use the shop...... i know some people wont pay anything on shop but many will.... my ideal program would be... to have a system like give the game free or buy it...and then keep it free till lvl 20 (like wow) and THEN use a cheaper kind of sunscription. like 5 euro/ month. that would be awesome and ideal for me. 15 euro are a bit to much specialy with the world economical crysis...

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

Originally posted by sodade21i hate cash shop in every possible way... Guild wars 2 started nicely.,.. but then they always nerfed all the ways to gain gold so we have to use the gem store more... everything was about the gem store at some point.... hiding well but still felt it always.... i prefer a really free model such an never ending trial of some sort... and then if you wanna really participate to the game you should pay the sub.. but not such as AoC that you couldnt go to certain places... i think i liked theDDO most..but still...i believe that the best way to get the best game..is with sub. company try more so ppl want to play even with sub... rather than the company trick people so they have to use the shop...... i know some people wont pay anything on shop but many will.... my ideal program would be... to have a system like give the game free or buy it...and then keep it free till lvl 20 (like wow) and THEN use a cheaper kind of sunscription. like 5 euro/ month. that would be awesome and ideal for me. 15 euro are a bit to much specialy with the world economical crysis...

They nerfed the loot in Orr because they didn't want people the do the same dynamic events over and over and over. GW2 is about exploration. Anyway, you can run dungeons and get over 1 gold in 15 minutes each run.

Report this post

Originally posted by IstavaanThe sub model is dead, this game will be B2P.

That is your own personal belief and not fact bub. Show us your statistical flow charts please.

Every new mmo releasing is either f2p or b2p. The mmo's that used be sub based are either going f2p(Tera) or b2p(TSW). Planetside 2 f2p, neverwinter will be f2p, firefall will be f2p. The only games that are sticking to the sub model are indie title because they really need the money.

Yes and we are already seeing a trend where many of the converted games are not doing well at all beyond the first year. CoH already bit the dirt and games like STO, CO, Vanguard, EQ 2, AoC, SWTOR and others are either on the verge or well on their way after the initial F2P first year surge wears off. I would not be so quick to discount the subscription model and ArenaNet's model hasn't proven to be a big money maker either. Yes, they make money, but the B2P model doesn't give most companies the kind of revenues they want to see. Also, many of these upcoming games are going with hybrid models, where you can buy a sub and get everything or go F2P and pay piecemeal, but they will be offering subs as an option for a long time to come.

Are you the first ESO doom sayer? Congrats for your golden troll award.

P2P is the best choice. Second is B2P (but just because Elder Scrolls are B2P and Zenimax (the parent) has the money to support a huge B2P mmo)

Both with shops for vanity items for ppl that actually like that stuff - I personally don't but I wouldnt shape the community around what "I like".

B2P with cash shop IS the best.

Unless you have 10 million trustworthy fans, then P2P.

TESO have to be B2P.

Im no expert on the financial part of the MMO business. But 10 million subscribers shouldn't be needed to run a succesful MMO. I reckon 1 million is sufficient.

Well, EA said that a consistent 500K subs would be enough to make a decent profit if it stayed around that level for a couple of years and they invested a lot of money into SWTOR, so I imagine that most MMOs could be profitable, if not extremely profitable with fewer subs.

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

Originally posted by IstavaanThe sub model is dead, this game will be B2P.

I really dotn know how much I have to say this. P2P is not dead. The reason all recent P2P games didnt do well is due to DESIGN CHOICES not what model they use. For example if SWTOR was truly amazing it would still be sub because it would have wow like numbers. The P2P model isnt dead poor design choices are.

Playing: War Thunder, World of Warcraft, and Grim DawnWaiting on:Everquest Next and The Black Desert

Report this post

All still require subscriptions to play. I'm sure there are more i'm missing.

Yes you are right, but I meant MMOs have released within the past few years. Out of that whole list Warhammer would be the most recent, and a lot of players have considered it as a failure.

I only mentioned WoW because it's the elephant in any room of the MMO spectrum.

Rift. Rift is doing extremely well. Storm legion brought in a HUGE amount of new players. Also the company runnign Rift is doing pretty well. Defiance looks great, they just signed to publish AA in the west, End of Nations looks great, and they are workign with crytek on Warface.

Playing: War Thunder, World of Warcraft, and Grim DawnWaiting on:Everquest Next and The Black Desert

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

Originally posted by GaladournI want TESO to attract a mature audience, so I voted P2P.

Yeah because that worked out so well for WoW.

Back to the OP, B2P is obviously the best model, but realistically they will sell the box and charge a sub fee until it becomes unprofitable, then switch to a shitty freemium hybrid to milk the rest out of a dying game. Just like SWTOR.

All still require subscriptions to play. I'm sure there are more i'm missing.

Yes you are right, but I meant MMOs have released within the past few years. Out of that whole list Warhammer would be the most recent, and a lot of players have considered it as a failure.

I only mentioned WoW because it's the elephant in any room of the MMO spectrum.

Rift. Rift is doing extremely well. Storm legion brought in a HUGE amount of new players. Also the company runnign Rift is doing pretty well. Defiance looks great, they just signed to publish AA in the west, End of Nations looks great, and they are workign with crytek on Warface.

The layoffs at Trion would indicate that Rift isn't doing as well as everyone hoped.